Joel E. Denny wrote:
> I just realized I don't know how to configure update-copyright permanently
> for a project. The following patch gives me a way.
Pushed. I'll certainly be using that.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Thanks. Here's a patch to help those who don't want to wait until January
> > to reformat.
>
> Heh ;-)
I'm not sure you're excited enough. :-)
> Good addition. Pushed.
Thanks.
I just realized I don't know how to configure update-copyright perman
Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> > Below are some patches to implement that.
>> ...
>> > +2009-08-14 Joel E. Denny
>> > +
>> > + update-copyright: convert 2-digit to 4-digit years
>> > + * build-aux/update-copyright: Implement and document.
>> > + * tests/tes
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Below are some patches to implement that.
> ...
> > +2009-08-14 Joel E. Denny
> > +
> > + update-copyright: convert 2-digit to 4-digit years
> > + * build-aux/update-copyright: Implement and document.
> > + * tests/test-update-copyright.sh: Upd
Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Eric Blake wrote:
...
>> According to Akim Demaille on 8/13/2009 1:59 AM:
>> >> - Copyright (C) 89, 90, 91, 1995-2006, 2008-2009 Free Software
>> >> - Foundation, Inc.
>> >> + Copyright (C) 89, 90, 91, 1995-2006, 2008-2009 Free Software
>> >> Founda
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Akim Demaille on 8/13/2009 1:59 AM:
> >> - Copyright (C) 89, 90, 91, 1995-2006, 2008-2009 Free Software
> >> - Foundation, Inc.
> >> + Copyright (C) 89, 90, 91, 1995-2006, 2008-2009 Free Software
> >> Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > While at it
> While at it, why not standardize everything to 4 digits
Sounds like a good idea to me< FWIW.
The 2-digit years came about because rms "optimized" it with lawyers
umpteen years ago. When I questioned him about it more recently (maybe
only .3umpteen years :), he went back to the lawyers and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Akim Demaille on 8/13/2009 1:59 AM:
>> - Copyright (C) 89, 90, 91, 1995-2006, 2008-2009 Free Software
>> - Foundation, Inc.
>> + Copyright (C) 89, 90, 91, 1995-2006, 2008-2009 Free Software
>> Foundation, Inc.
>
> While at it, why n
Hi All!
Le 28 juil. 09 à 02:36, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
diff --git a/src/head.c b/src/head.c
index c96f910..89b6ef9 100644
--- a/src/head.c
+++ b/src/head.c
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
/* head -- output first part of file(s)
- Copyright (C) 89, 90, 91, 1995-2006, 2008-2009 Free Software
- Foundation, I
Le 31 juil. 09 à 15:52, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
Hi Joel,
+# Format within margin.
+my $new_wrapped;
+my $text_margin = $margin - length($prefix);
+while (length($new))
+ {
+if (($new =~ s/^(.{1,$text_margin})(?: |$)//)
+|| ($
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > There remains at least one infelicity: if someone discusses
> > the Copyright (C) notation (e.g., as on this line), and later
> > has the copyright-with-dates line, the prefixes may not match.
> > We could re
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Thank you!
Thank you. :)
> Here's an incremental change I'm about to fold into yours.
> It changes "comment" to "prefix" and adjusts syntax.
Makes sense.
> There remains at least one infelicity: if someone discusses
> the Copyright (C) notation (e.g.
Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> Joel E. Denny wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> >
>> >> Joel E. Denny wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I'd like to use this in Bison. Would you consider contributing
>> >> > build-aux/update-copyright to gnulib so we
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Joel E. Denny wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >
> >> Joel E. Denny wrote:
> >
> >> > I'd like to use this in Bison. Would you consider contributing
> >> > build-aux/update-copyright to gnulib so we don't maintain separate
> >> >
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > You're still missing copyrights containing newline followed by a comment
> > sequence. For example, m4/lib-check.m4.
>
> You're right. Thanks.
> This new version catches those, too.
> It doesn't allow trailing blanks between the final number
> and "\
Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> Joel E. Denny wrote:
>
>> > I'd like to use this in Bison. Would you consider contributing
>> > build-aux/update-copyright to gnulib so we don't maintain separate copies?
>>
>> Sure.
>
> Thanks. I'll watch for that. In the mea
Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> Joel E. Denny wrote:
>
>> > I'd like to use this in Bison. Would you consider contributing
>> > build-aux/update-copyright to gnulib so we don't maintain separate copies?
>>
>> Sure.
>
> Thanks. I'll watch for that. In the mea
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Joel E. Denny wrote:
> > I'd like to use this in Bison. Would you consider contributing
> > build-aux/update-copyright to gnulib so we don't maintain separate copies?
>
> Sure.
Thanks. I'll watch for that. In the meantime, I'll probably import a
co
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Joel E. Denny wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim.
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>>> >From 85dd41402048603c977f49c5d1ea349b1c724531 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Jim Meyering
>>> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:33:59 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to automate
Joel E. Denny wrote:
> Hi Jim.
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> >From 85dd41402048603c977f49c5d1ea349b1c724531 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Jim Meyering
>> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:33:59 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to automate the annual
>> copyright-year-u
Hi Jim.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >From 85dd41402048603c977f49c5d1ea349b1c724531 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jim Meyering
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:33:59 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to automate the annual
> copyright-year-update process
>
> * build-aux/up
Philip Rowlands wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
>> It doesn't affect it at all, if you use a version of coreutils from
>> 1980, then the copyright term will be from that date. If you use a
>> version from 2100 then it will be from that date.
>
> OK, but taken separately the
Eric Blake wrote:
> Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>
>> I prefer to have one change set per year updating all copyright year lists,
>> rather than having a copyright-list update as part of the first
>> change of the year for files modified in the normal course of development.
>
> Sounds fine.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It doesn't affect it at all, if you use a version of coreutils from
1980, then the copyright term will be from that date. If you use a
version from 2100 then it will be from that date.
OK, but taken separately the files have/had dates to indicate t
Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
> I prefer to have one change set per year updating all copyright year lists,
> rather than having a copyright-list update as part of the first
> change of the year for files modified in the normal course of development.
Sounds fine.
> So I did the mass-update
> "migration of coreutils works into the public domain"
>
> I know of no such plan.
I'm refering to the copyright term limits which apply to all works,
not a specific plan for coreutils.
It doesn't affect it at all, if you use a version of coreutils from
1980, then the copyright
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
"migration of coreutils works into the public domain"
I know of no such plan.
I'm refering to the copyright term limits which apply to all works, not
a specific plan for coreutils.
Cheers,
Phil
___
Bu
Philip Rowlands wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> Karl Berry just mentioned that it's now considered fine (recommended,
>> even) to update all copyright lists to include the new year on January 1.
>
> I realise this list may not be the right place for GNU policy
> discussion, b
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
Karl Berry just mentioned that it's now considered fine (recommended,
even) to update all copyright lists to include the new year on January 1.
I realise this list may not be the right place for GNU policy
discussion, but how will this affect the event
29 matches
Mail list logo
